That’s basically what these do. What’s the difficulty?

They should be equally acceptable without needing to be sexualized. But even if you like seeing tits, the best way to see other’s is to not be weird, dehumanizing, or non-consenting about it. That’s like the 1 rule of etiquette anyway, try within reason to not make other people uncomfortable.

I only have transition lens on my prescription safety glasses because construction sites are hazardous to glasses and eyes at all times. I don’t always have clean hands for switching. And switching itself leaves your eyes vulnerable to shit while switching. It’s also the only time I don’t want polarized lens because they often make screens difficult to read.

For everyday, I carry a polarized set and a regular set and get swapped between the same case. They are basically the same frames too so they both fit because my head is to large for most frames that aren’t sunglasses frames anyway. If I’m planning on being mostly outside, I may only bring the polarized lens because they don’t actually block that much light inside even though they block about %50 of the light outside. Tinted lens that aren’t polarized usually just cause additional eye strain for me anyway. Also only polycarbonate lens for outside also because even if they have no tinting they are blocking UV light.

Clip on lens are prone to trouble. They will either scratch your prescription lens or just get gunked up themselves since you’re doubling the surface area that needs to be kept clean.

In general I spend WAY more thought and money on things for or touching my eyes, feet, hands, and private sweaty bits. Try out things and see what works for you. For example, I was surprised how great wool socks are for hot sweaty climates.

Sand Hills aren’t very afraid of humans anyway.

Yes, that is the vulnerability that you are exploiting and making worse for an entire family of cranes.

I’ve seen this story before. It usually ends in tragedy for the cranes. You’ve likely already seen the results with the loss of their chick. You blame it on a wild animal without proof, but it’s just as likely that the reduction of their fear response to humans (as a direct result of your “kindness”) led to their death.

I disagree on ever single point you’ve said here.

While I envy your ability to get close to wildlife, loosing their fear of humans is really very dangerous for Sand Hill Cranes especially.

Sounds like a skill issue. Good translation is hard and is rarely a literal one to one mapping of syntax and diction. It’s an interpretive art.

Sounds like a skill issue. Bad translations are bad because they don’t find good ways to translate these kinds of things. As you say, translation isn’t just about the words, it’s about cultural context. But, bad translations aren’t inevitable just because good translations are difficult.

We all wear a mask.

I got my first Gmail address through an invite during the beta release in late 2004.

Just one paragraph? I understand why that feels like an indicator of LLM use these days, but that actually sounds like a fairly common mistake human writers might make. Author decides to move a topic to a different section, copies it and rewords to suite new placement and forgets to remove the section from it’s original spot. A pro shouldn’t be making that kind of mistake, but it’s a particularly difficult one to spot in reviewing the article. It’s an error that is especially difficult to spot if you’re the author because of your own familiarity with the article. The only effective way I found to combat those kinds of mistakes in my writing was to delay my own review of my writing (sometimes as long as a day or two) after significant writing or edits. Clearly that strategy is unworkable in a fast paced journalism setting, where that kind of space between writing and editing cannot meet deadlines.

This would look a lot different than the similar AI slop tell I see in news articles that repeat the headline across multiple paragraphs in a row with different wording and no new details or clarifications. I don’t see any of this in the article. I could not find the repeated paragraphs that you’re talking about. Calling back to previous points in an essay with various subsections, even repeating important points and details is often just good writing.

Removed by mod

The only free society we will get is an anarchist one where people agree to work together and create rules that they can all abide by. Those who don’t want to abide by the communities rules can leave.

That’s not anarchy. That’s some form of democracy.

Any top-down system of governance will never be free by its very nature.

That’s exactly the kind of logic bullies use to inflict their freedom on others.

Society only works by consent. If the people do not consent to the laws, they are authoritarian and should be resisted.

Real “I’m 14 and this is deep” energy here. Laws and governance of any kind are inherently rooted in consent to authority. Hell, even being a good citizen in an anarchy is about consenting to the authority of etiquette, basically the tyranny of empathy over free will. Authority invites resistance, arguing for resistance to authority simply because it exists is an empty nothing burger of a philosophy.

This all feels like a libertarian dog whistle to excuse politics lacking any empathy.

Does it really matter what the machines “think” if they steal water and other resources from poor and vulnerable communities on a scale that makes Nestlé jealous?

I see the irony is lost on you.

Maybe don’t screenshot late at night with your phone’s blue filter engaged.

I guess a proper margarita wasn’t green enough?

That’s like picking fights with strangers to manage your anger.

That also sounds a lot like the kind of comments that Reddit (and Lemmy, and really any social network with votes) grooms for if you prefer up votes to arguing with pedants and trolls. Eventually all your left with are boring overqualified comments or inflammatory comments when the mob rules and you are striving/solving for the most popular/engaging answer. It’s like conversational least squares analysis.

I wonder where the LLM trolls are? Maybe they are just so subtle, we haven’t noticed them. Maybe LLMs aren’t hallucinating answers, so much as they and trolling us. And here is where I qualify my answer in an attempt to quell the fools that might think anything I’ve said here implies that LLMs are anything close to sapient.

Occam’s razor doesn’t apply because a flat earth is an exceedingly complex and irregular explanation for the even the most basic naked eye astronomical observations we can make.